# Thread: The screw nature of electromagnetism

1. Take a look at Minkowski’s Space and Time dating from 1908. Towards the back is this:

"In the description of the field caused by the electron itself, then it will appear that the division of the field into electric and magnetic forces is a relative one with respect to the time-axis assumed; the two forces considered together can most vividly be described by a certain analogy to the force-screw in mechanics; the analogy is, however, imperfect".

Note how he said the field, and referred to electric and magnetic forces. The electron doesn't have an electric field or a magnetic field, it has an electromagnetic field. See Wikipedia and note this:

"Over time, it was realized that the electric and magnetic fields are better thought of as two parts of a greater whole - the electromagnetic field".

Also note the word screw. If you have a pump-action screwdriver you’ll appreciate that linear force is converted into rotational force. That’s like an electric motor: current flows along the wire, and the motor turns. When you use an ordinary screwdriver, rotational force is converted into linear force, and the screw is driven into the wood. That’s like a dynamo: turn the rotor, and current flows along the wire. We even have the right-hand rule which applies not just to electromagnetism, but to screw threads. But you don’t usually hear about this "screw nature of electromagnetism". Instead you tend to read about the electric field and the magnetic field as if they’re separate things rather than “two parts of a greater whole”. In John Jackson’s Classical Electrodynamics you have to wait until section 11.10 before he says "one should properly speak of the electromagnetic field Fμv rather than E or B separately". E is usually drawn with radial lines of force, and B is usually drawn with concentric lines. There's no problem visualizing them. But there's nothing that lets you visualize the "greater whole". However I think there is a way. A simple way. You just combine the radial and concentric lines. Like this:

EMfield.jpg

Once you do this, other things start falling into place. You read about gravitomagnetism and spot things like "there is a space-time vortex around Earth" and "if space is twisted". You appreciate why gravitomagnetism is an analogy of electromagnetism. You follow the lead back to Maxwell and you spot this: "a motion of translation along an axis cannot produce a rotation about that axis unless it meets with some special mechanism, like that of a screw". And you spot Maxwell’s page title too, which is "The Theory of Molecular Vortices". You appreciate Faraday all the more, and you realise why spinors are called spinors. You read about Dirac’s belt and you start to see things that were never in your textbooks. You can create an electron along with a positron in pair production. Out of light. And you can diffract the electron, because it has a wave nature. Like it’s light trapped by its own displacement current such that what was an electromagnetic field-variation now looks like a standing field. Like it's an optical vortex. It fits. Especially since counter-rotating vortices attract, and co-rotating vortices repel. A cyclone is a vortex. If you could set down two cyclones next to one another they’d move linearly apart. If you could set down a cyclone near to an anticyclone rotating the other way, they’d move together. And if you could hurl the cyclone past the anticyclone, they’d swirl around one another too, like electrons and positrons do in positronium. They're dynamical spinors in frame-dragged space, and E and B denote the linear and rotational forces between them. The forces that result from electromagnetic field interactions, where it takes two to tango. Hence when you look at Wikipedia again, now you notice this:

"The electric field is a vector field. The field vector at a given point is defined as the force vector per unit charge that would be exerted on a stationary test charge at that point".

Yes, it makes sense, but you don’t hear much about the screw nature of electromagnetism. Or the geometry of electromagnetic systems. It ties in with topological quantum field theory, but not the Standard Model. People say the electron is a fundamental particle, and some even say it's a point particle, even though the electron is supposed to be a field excitation. Even though it's quantum field theory, not quantum point particle theory. For myself I think this needs to go into the Standard Model, and work is required "within the Standard Model", not "beyond the Standard Model". But it isn't easy persuading the sort of people who say the electron is surrounded by a cloud of photons popping in and out of existence. Spontaneously. Like worms from mud. As if hydrogen atoms twinkle, and magnets shine. So whilst we'll get there one day, it will be a while yet.

2. Nobody?

There are some interesting issues to this. Like force carriers.

3. Hi Farsight.

Along magnetic lines, electrons will get a screwed path. The Betatron works that way.

You mentioned many subjects, of which Gravitomagnetism. Mainstream mixes Gravitomagnetism up with General Relativity, which is wrong. These theories are totally different if correctly used.
With Gravitomagnetism you can correctly explain what happens in gravity: disc galaxies, supernovae, black holes, etc...

Cheers,
Thierry

4. Originally Posted by 1thierry
With Gravitomagnetism you can correctly explain what happens in gravity
Gravitomagnetism is just an approximation obtained from perturbing the Minkowski metric; it is valid only for weak fields and non-relativistic speeds. To correctly explain gravity in a wider context, and fit all available data, you need the full theory, being the GR field equations.

5. Mainstream doesn't have the monopoly of truth.
As Schwartzschild correctly pointed out, and wrote to Einstein, the Mercury perihelion advance calculated in the general relativity theory is wrong. So, what does the general relativity theory prove at all?

Gravitomagnetism has nothing to do at all with the Minkowski metric nor with general relativity. It is a full gravity theory and is consistent with the observed bending of light and the Mercury perihelion advance.

If fact, is this a physics forum or just a propaganda tool for mainstream, of which you have the full control?
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Gravitomagnetism is just an approximation obtained from perturbing the Minkowski metric; it is valid only for weak fields and non-relativistic speeds. To correctly explain gravity in a wider context, and fit all available data, you need the full theory, being the GR field equations.

6. If fact, is this a physics forum or just a propaganda tool for mainstream, of which you have the full control?

Another crank.

7. Originally Posted by 1thierry
Mainstream doesn't have the monopoly of truth.
It doesn't claim that it does. However, it does recognize the vast body of experimental evidence in support of theories that have, by that virtue, become mainstream. Any new theory claiming superiority has to meet the burden of replicating all of the acknowledged successes of the mainstream, while at the same time successfully going beyond.

As Schwartzschild correctly pointed out, and wrote to Einstein, the Mercury perihelion advance calculated in the general relativity theory is wrong.
Tsk, tsk. You are playing a bit fast and loose with the facts. That's not cricket.

Schwarzschild (note the spelling; if you're going to invoke the man, at least show respect and spell his name right) gently objected to Einstein's successive approximations. Mathematical purists over the last century have voiced their objections. However, they -- and Schwarzschild -- also noted that the errors, while a sign of imperfection, do not affect the answer except in the second order. You left out the significant fact that Schwarzschild's own calculation agrees with Einstein's.

So, what does the general relativity theory prove at all?
Given that GR has passed all experimental tests thrown at it, what it says is that Einstein's "mistake" in deriving the perihelion advance of Mercury was minor and hardly undermines GR.

Gravitomagnetism has nothing to do at all with the Minkowski metric nor with general relativity. It is a full gravity theory and is consistent with the observed bending of light and the Mercury perihelion advance.

If fact, is this a physics forum or just a propaganda tool for mainstream, of which you have the full control?
Yes, this is a physics forum, where assertions need to be backed up by more than heated air. I eagerly await your evidence-based presentation of GR's replacement.

8. Originally Posted by 1thierry
Mainstream doesn't have the monopoly of truth.
Science isn't about truth - it is about models that best fit the available empirical data. The "mainstream" is not complete, and mightn't even be correct in all respects, but it does represent the best models we currently have.

As Schwartzschild correctly pointed out, and wrote to Einstein, the Mercury perihelion advance calculated in the general relativity theory is wrong.
The calculated perihelion precession from GR is 574.64 arcsec/JCn, which compares to a modern observed value of 574.10 arcsec/JCn. That's a deviation of 0.094% per Julian century (!). If you consider this "wrong", then the issue lies with you, rather than the mainstream. It should be noted that in Einstein's time it was the empirical data that was inaccurate ( it was obtained through optical measurements via telescopes ), not the theory; nowadays the precession can be measured using radar with a very high precision ( http://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract...ModPhys.19.361 ), and agrees with the GR predictions as detailed above.

And Schwarzschild is spelt without any "t" in it.

Gravitomagnetism has nothing to do at all with the Minkowski metric
Gravitomagnetism is obtained by perturbation theory from the Minkowski metric ( slide 8 onwards ) :

http://physics.ucsd.edu/~emichels/Gravitomagnetism.ppt

It is a full gravity theory
No, it is a weak-field, non-relativistic approximation only. See the above link.

If fact, is this a physics forum or just a propaganda tool for mainstream, of which you have the full control?
It's a mainstream physics forum, as you can see in the "Forum Guidelines" in the Announcements section. And yes, as being an admin here I do have a certain amount of control, but as things stand I am not making any use of it; rather, I am merely addressing your points.

9. Originally Posted by 1thierry
If fact, is this a physics forum or just a propaganda tool for mainstream, of which you have the full control?
This is not very far from "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy"

10. Originally Posted by KJW
This is not very far from "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy"
Very true

11. Originally Posted by 1thierry
Hi Farsight.

Along magnetic lines, electrons will get a screwed path. The Betatron works that way.
Yep. You can see other pictures of screwed paths too, such as on Electron Beam Lab Exercises by Dave Pace:

Originally Posted by 1thierry
You mentioned many subjects, of which Gravitomagnetism. Mainstream mixes Gravitomagnetism up with General Relativity, which is wrong. These theories are totally different if correctly used.
Noted. Heaviside's 1893 paper did of course precede general relativity.

Originally Posted by 1thierry
With Gravitomagnetism you can correctly explain what happens in gravity: disc galaxies, supernovae, black holes, etc...
I referred to gravitomagnetism because it refers to things like twisted space and vortexes which don't seem to feature in modern texts on electromagnetism, even though people are comfortable with the idea of a vector field.

12. Originally Posted by Farsight
Noted. Heaviside's 1893 paper did of course precede general relativity.
Right. Oliver Heaviside suggested the analogy and Oleg Jefimenko found covariant equations. The analogue Maxwell equations with time retardation solve all the known issues regarding gravity. For symmetrical steady systems, the Maxwell equations without time retardation solve it all.
GR is a cripple theory that is able to solve almost nothing.

Originally Posted by Farsight
I referred to gravitomagnetism because it refers to things like twisted space and vortexes which don't seem to feature in modern texts on electromagnetism, even though people are comfortable with the idea of a vector field.
Maxwell tried to find an underlaying mechanism to electromagnetism, but he only suggested the tiny vortices, without a real mechanism.

13. Can you offer something better?

14. Yes, Beer w/Straw, there is indeed something much better: gravitomagnetism, which has been developed by Oliver Heaviside and applied by Oleg Jefimenko for time-dependent systems.

It explains the double value of the light bending near massive objects and it explains the Mercury perihelion advance.
It explains why fast spinning stars don't totally fly apart; it explains why there are only prograde orbits in our solar system and in disc galaxies. It explains why the number of windings in spiral galaxies don't fit with their age. Also, it explains why the velocity of the stars in disc galaxies is constant and doesn't follow the Kepler laws, without the need of dark matter. It explains the instability of satelites in some orbits, the tilt change of gyroscopes etc. It explains the shape of supernova SN1987a, the statistical findings of motion of asteroids in the asteroid belt and so on.

General relativity doesn't explain almost anything of these topics.

15. You know, I'm sorry I asked.

You are one of a myriad who say that they know a better... whatever.

16. Originally Posted by 1thierry
Yes, Beer w/Straw, there is indeed something much better: gravitomagnetism, which has been developed by Oliver Heaviside and applied by Oleg Jefimenko for time-dependent systems.

It explains the double value of the light bending near massive objects and it explains the Mercury perihelion advance. {snip}

General relativity doesn't explain almost anything of these topics.
So, Einstein and Schwarzschild (whom you cited as having corrected Einstein) just independently and accidentally got the same (to three significant digits) and correct value for the perihelion advance of Mercury, using GR.

Riiiight...

17. Originally Posted by 1thierry
The analogue Maxwell equations with time retardation solve all the known issues regarding gravity.
There aren't any issues regarding gravity, we just don't know yet how to properly quantise it.

18. Originally Posted by 1thierry
General relativity doesn't explain almost anything of these topics.
MODERATOR NOTE : You will stop stating your personal ideas in the main sections of this forum as if they were facts. You are welcome to present them in the "Personal Theories" section if you want, but the main sections are reserved for established science. As for the above statement itself - it is blatantly false, as already demonstrated to you.

19. Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
You know, I'm sorry I asked.

You are one of a myriad who say that they know a better... whatever.
Well, there are people with a brain who use it, and others who don't, because they are just happy to get a job and wages, but they follow mainstream like sheep.

20. Originally Posted by tk421
So, Einstein and Schwarzschild (whom you cited as having corrected Einstein) just independently and accidentally got the same (to three significant digits) and correct value for the perihelion advance of Mercury, using GR.

Riiiight...
I never said that. You interprete it wrongly. Schwarzschild corrected Einstein by proving GR is wrong in that, but Einstein didn't change it. The reason is that the equations just cannot be changed in order to get the right result. The initial equation derivations are wrong and cannot result in the observed perihelion advance of Mercury, but should come to an advance of zero. That is so because there are two elliptic functions in the calculus whereof Einstein took one, but due to successive approximations, he omitted the second one. But both elliptical functions should cancel each other out.

But if you apply gravitomagnetism, you come to a perihelion advance that is correct.

21. Originally Posted by 1thierry
Well, there are people with a brain who use it, and others who don't, because they are just happy to get a job and wages, but they follow mainstream like sheep.
There's a difference between skepticism and cynicism.

22. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
MODERATOR NOTE : You will stop stating your personal ideas in the main sections of this forum as if they were facts. You are welcome to present them in the "Personal Theories" section if you want, but the main sections are reserved for established science. As for the above statement itself - it is blatantly false, as already demonstrated to you.
I thought this was a science forum, but I see it is a kindergarten! Good luck with it!

23. Originally Posted by 1thierry
The reason is that the equations just cannot be changed in order to get the right result.
They don't need to be changed because they already give the right result. It is very disappointing that people like yourself just ignore the answers that are being given - I have presented both the GR result as well as the observational data with regards to the perihelion precession over on the other thread ( backed up with references ), and you have completely ignored that. The fact is that these agree down to an accuracy level of 0.09% per Julian century (!), so GR is a good model for this phenomenon. The same goes for all other gravitational physics in the classical domain.

I have also pointed out ( with references ) that GEM is only a weak-field non-relativistic approximation, which is something you have chosen to completely ignore as well.

Not only is ignoring valid answers and pretending they were never given extremely bad forum etiquette, it also makes any meaningful discussion impossible. It is quite obvious that you aren't here to discuss science and empirical data, you are here only to proliferate your personal opinion - now, you are welcome to do that, but you will do it in the appropriate section, being "Personal Theories", and you will probably find that it will remain more or less universally ignored there. In any case, the whole "relativity is wrong" nonsense has no place in the main sections, this being strictly a mainstream forum as indicated in the Guidelines.

I thought this was a science forum
It is, hence my note. You are entitled to your opinions ( in the appropriate section ), but not to your own facts.

24. btr: your dipole-morph image noted. Remember what I said about why I removed the arrowheads, and about the electron moving along "electric field lines" but around "magnetic field lines". I was going to say something else, and will give it here:

4π = 12.566370
c = 299792458
c½ = 17314.5158177
λe = 4π / c = 12.566370 / (299792458 * 17314.5158177) = 2.420910 x 10ˉ¹² m

That's recognisable as something close to the electron Compton wavelength. It looks like Eddington-style numerology, but α=e²/4πε0ħc so given an n=1 to fix the dimensionality along with lp=√(ћG/c³), the expression e = √(ε0/4πnc3) doesn't look totally alien. Now run the numbers:

ε0 = 8.854187817 x 10−12
4π = 12.566370
c3 = 26.944002 x 1024
4πc3 = 338.5883200×1024
e = √(8.854187817 × 10-12 / 338.5883200×1024 ) = √(2.6150304 × 10-38) = 1.61710 × 10-19 Coulombs

Not exact I knw, but see the blue DNA torus here along with this for a little insight into the electron "self binding energy" that relaxes this to 1.60217 × 10−19 Coulombs and the Compton wavelength to 2.426310 x 10ˉ¹² m. This work by medical doctor Andrew Worsley might turn out to be flawed along with work by Williamson / van der Mark and Qiu-Hong Hu. But I do think it is crucial that HEP focuses on the electron instead of indulging in the Hara-Kiri that is SUSY and the selectron. And in these days of funding cuts, take on board whatever you can.

25. This should be in "Personal Theories and Alternative Hypothesis."

26. Originally Posted by Farsight
btr: your dipole-morph image noted. Remember what I said about why I removed the arrowheads, and about the electron moving along "electric field lines" but around "magnetic field lines". I was going to say something else, and will give it here:

4π = 12.566370
c = 299792458
c½ = 17314.5158177
λe = 4π / c = 12.566370 / (299792458 * 17314.5158177) = 2.420910 x 10ˉ¹² m

That's recognisable as something close to the electron Compton wavelength. It looks like Eddington-style numerology, but α=e²/4πε0ħc so given an n=1 to fix the dimensionality along with lp=√(ћG/c³), the expression e = √(ε0/4πnc3) doesn't look totally alien. Now run the numbers:

ε0 = 8.854187817 x 10−12
4π = 12.566370
c3 = 26.944002 x 1024
4πc3 = 338.5883200×1024
e = √(8.854187817 × 10-12 / 338.5883200×1024 ) = √(2.6150304 × 10-38) = 1.61710 × 10-19 Coulombs

Not exact I knw, but see the blue DNA torus here along with this for a little insight into the electron "self binding energy" that relaxes this to 1.60217 × 10−19 Coulombs and the Compton wavelength to 2.426310 x 10ˉ¹² m. This work by medical doctor Andrew Worsley might turn out to be flawed along with work by Williamson / van der Mark and Qiu-Hong Hu. But I do think it is crucial that HEP focuses on the electron instead of indulging in the Hara-Kiri that is SUSY and the selectron. And in these days of funding cuts, take on board whatever you can.

I must say I am perplexed to find myself replied to in a thread I haven't posted in, on a totally different forum!

We were discussing these formulae in your The screw nature of electromagnetism thread on SciForums.com; I have replied there.

27. I said I wouldn't post about Minkowski and Maxwell in some "Alternative Theories" theories trashcan. Where some would even boot Einstein's E=mc² paper. My word is my bond. And I saw you here on another thread, so I thought I'd give you a little "welcome".

Please feel free to disregard the above, I don't mean to force it upon you, but on the other hand I didn't want to keep it from you either. The first free parameter of the Standard Model is electron mass. It would be a good thing if it was derivable from first principles. By the way, we were starting to talk about presentism, you might want to take a look at this. I'm John Duffield by the way, an IT guy from Poole in the UK who started taking a big interest about ten years back when his children dropped all their science subjects and he found out that physics A levels were down 56%. Think of me as a logician. Or better still, a detective. Pleased to make your acquaintance.

28. Originally Posted by Farsight
I said I wouldn't post about Minkowski and Maxwell in some "Alternative Theories" theories trashcan.
So, even though you are offering an alternative to the way scientists use physics, you are angry at being so identified? Why have a problem with the truth? And why make this forum suffer for it?

29. Einstein's E = mc2 paper wouldn't belong in "Alternative Theories", just Farsight's conclusions from it.

As to the alleged screw nature of electromagnetism, Farsight's main argument is from interpreting some analogies rather literally. The "screw" is a way of interpreting a right-hand rule (or left-hand one) for the magnetic field. The electromagnetic-field tensor F contains both E and B as components. F is an antisymmetric tensor indexed with two space-time indices. Its 3+1 decomposition is the E and B fields: Ftx = Ex, Fyz = Bx to within sign conventions.

The cross products and "screw" analogies come from the fact that an antisymmetric 2-tensor in 3-space can be interpreted as a vector times the antisymmetric symbol:

Aij = εijkAk

30. Read the OP. Both Minkowski and Maxwell referred to the screw nature of electromagnetism. It's not just something I've made up. it's more than just some analogy with gravitomagnetism: "...But if space is twisted, the direction of the gyroscope's axis should drift over time...

31. Originally Posted by Farsight
Both Minkowski and Maxwell referred to the screw nature of electromagnetism.
That's scriptural percussion. It does not involve understanding why electromagnetism is supposed to have a screw nature.

I was able to understand it, however. The electromagnetic field is an antisymmetric tensor, and the pure-space part can be mapped onto a vector by doing a sort of cross product. It's that cross product that has an analogy with a screw.

32. What's scriptural percussion? Maxwell said what he said: "a motion of translation along an axis cannot produce a rotation about that axis unless it meets with some special mechanism, like that of a screw". This screw mechanism isn't to do with an antisymmetric tensor or a cross product. It's much more mundane: you send a current along a wire and the motor turns. That's akin to a pump-action screw driver. The converse is that you turn the dynamo and the current goes up the wire. That's akin to an ordinary screwdriver.

33. Scriptural percussion: Bible-thumping. Like your quoting Maxwell instead of arguing from the appropriate theories.

34. Don't dismiss what Maxwell/Minkowski/Einstein etc said as "bible thumping", lpetrich. Because my references to them is where I start arguing from the appropriate theories. Maxwell formalised Faraday's experimental work and unified electricity and magnetism. Hence you can read this: "Over time, it was realized that the electric and magnetic fields are better thought of as two parts of a greater whole — the electromagnetic field." And yet here we are a hundred and fifty years later, and people are still drawing electric fields and magnetic fields. Sheesh.

35. Originally Posted by Farsight
Don't dismiss what Maxwell/Minkowski/Einstein etc said as "bible thumping", lpetrich.
lpetrich is not dismissing Maxwell, Minkowski, or Einstein. Rather the reverse is going on: he is asking that people pay attention to what they wrote in the details of their theories, not simply look to cherry-picked quotations. That is the "bible thumping" that you are doing, regardless of your references.

36. I'm the one who has paid attention to what they wrote in the details of their theories. See the OP and note that Maxwell's page title was the theory of molecular vortices, which the sharp detective can relate to spinors. I'm afraid Loren is the sort of guy who would encourage you to ignore that. Talking of which, you seem to have ignored what I said about people are still drawing electric fields and magnetic fields. How about you take note of "over time electric and magnetic fields are better thought of as two parts of a greater whole — the electromagnetic field" and try depicting the electromagnetic field?

37. Originally Posted by Farsight
I'm the one who has paid attention to what they wrote in the details of their theories.
Either you are straight up lying or you are delusional.

You have admitted that you haven't learned the mathematics of their theories. This means that you do not know the details.

38. Maxwell said what he said: "a motion of translation along an axis cannot produce a rotation about that axis unless it meets with some special mechanism, like that of a screw".
That's the sort of thing I meant by scriptural percussion. Waving around a quote from an allegedly inspired source and making far-reaching interpretations of it, no matter how unjustified those interpretations may be.
This screw mechanism isn't to do with an antisymmetric tensor or a cross product.
Except that it does. These screw analogies are a way of explain cross products, and cross products are in turn from antisymmetric tensors being interpreted as vectors.
It's much more mundane: you send a current along a wire and the motor turns. That's akin to a pump-action screw driver. The converse is that you turn the dynamo and the current goes up the wire. That's akin to an ordinary screwdriver.
They rotate because that's what's mechanically most convenient. It has nothing to do with anything about electromagnetism. Have you ever heard of a linear motor?
Don't dismiss what Maxwell/Minkowski/Einstein etc said as "bible thumping", lpetrich.
I do because you treat their quotes as having some very special status, as if they were inspired truth.
"Over time, it was realized that the electric and magnetic fields are better thought of as two parts of a greater whole — the electromagnetic field." And yet here we are a hundred and fifty years later, and people are still drawing electric fields and magnetic fields.
That's because the electromagnetic field contains the electric and magnetic fields as separate components of it, not the two mashed together or whatever.
I'm the one who has paid attention to what they wrote in the details of their theories.
Scriptural percussion again.
See the OP and note that Maxwell's page title was the theory of molecular vortices,
Science is not theology. Maxwell's words are not revealed truth. We can freely reject his assertions if we have no reason to believe them to be true.
which the sharp detective can relate to spinors.
The etymological fallacy.

Farsight, I get the impression that you don't know what a spinor is. However, I do.

39. Originally Posted by lpetrich
That's the sort of thing I meant by scriptural percussion. Waving around a quote from an allegedly inspired source and making far-reaching interpretations of it, no matter how unjustified those interpretations may be.
But it is justified. Minkowski said the same kind of thing too. And yet you dismiss them!

Originally Posted by lpetrich
Except that it does. These screw analogies are a way of explain cross products, and cross products are in turn from antisymmetric tensors being interpreted as vectors.
Wrong. You're lost in abstraction. A tensor is merely a matrix, a cross-product is "a binary operation on two vectors in three-dimensional space. It results in a vector that is perpendicular to both". Maxwell and Minkowski were talking about forces and motion.

Originally Posted by lpetrich
They rotate because that's what's mechanically most convenient. It has nothing to do with anything about electromagnetism. Have you ever heard of a linear motor?
It's got everything to do with electromagnetism! It goes all the way back to Faraday's homopolar motor. And irony of ironies, the modern version on Wikipedia features a screw, Yes of course I've heard of a linear motor, it's "an electric motor that has had its stator and rotor 'unrolled'".

Originally Posted by lpetrich
That's because the electromagnetic field contains the electric and magnetic fields as separate components of it, not the two mashed together or whatever.
It's one field. The electromagnetic field. Read what Minkowski said. Pay attention, don't dismiss the guy because you think your cargo-cult misunderstanding is better:

"In the description of the field caused by the electron itself, then it will appear that the division of the field into electric and magnetic forces is a relative one with respect to the time-axis assumed; the two forces considered together can most vividly be described by a certain analogy to the force-screw in mechanics; the analogy is, however, imperfect".

Electromagnetic field interactions result in electric force and magnetic force. Now try and depict and electromagnetic field.

Originally Posted by lpetrich
Science is not theology...
Oh no? So why do the electron and the positron move towards one another? Because they're throwing photons back and forth?

Originally Posted by lpetrich
Farsight, I get the impression that you don't know what a spinor is. However, I do.
I'm sure we all know what a spinor is: http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/users/io..._C_spinors.pdf

40. Originally Posted by Farsight
Wrong. You're lost in abstraction.
From looking at Minkowski's text, it looks like he's found in the details.

A tensor is merely a matrix,
Really? I know you are a big fan of argument by links, so you might want to read this: Tensor -- from Wolfram MathWorld
It's one field. The electromagnetic field. Read what Minkowski said. Pay attention, don't dismiss the guy because you think your cargo-cult misunderstanding is better:
Please show us that your understanding matches the observations: your understanding appears to fail to allow us to accurately predict how things move in an electromagnetic field. Until you demonstrate that Farsight-Electromagnetism can match observations, there is no reason to believe that it is anything other than a fantasy exercise that could potentially bear fruit.

41. I've shown you in the OP.

Why don't you explain why the electron and the positron move towards one another? And why don't you try to depict the electromagnetic field?

42. Originally Posted by Farsight
I've shown you in the OP.
Why give us such an obvious lie?

You have a picture of a spiral, please show us the details of the system that the spiral is supposed to represent and the details that show us that the details of that spiral match the details of the system. With regular electromagnetism, where one uses two components working together, we can describe a position in a way that we can confront this description with observation. You want us to use a single field that you describe only in a picture with no guide as to how to confront this picture with reality.
Why don't you explain why the electron and the positron move towards one another? And why don't you try to depict the electromagnetic field?
I can turn to an existing body of physics that appears to disagree with your claims to do this. You have given me no reason to believe that Farsight-Electromagnetism can hope to match the physics of even a century and a half ago.

43. (screw analogy for electromagnetism...)
Originally Posted by Farsight
Minkowski said the same kind of thing too. And yet you dismiss them!
Yelling that I deny Revealed Truth. A scriptural-percussionist sort of argument. So like a theologian.

(Me; These screw analogies are a way of explain cross products, and cross products are in turn from antisymmetric tensors being interpreted as vectors.)
Originally Posted by Farsight
Wrong. You're lost in abstraction. A tensor is merely a matrix, a cross-product is "a binary operation on two vectors in three-dimensional space. It results in a vector that is perpendicular to both". Maxwell and Minkowski were talking about forces and motion.
Cross products -- those are in Maxwell's work. Tensors -- those are in Minkowski's work. So by denying cross products and tensors, you deny Maxwell and Minkowski. Yes, you deny what you otherwise treat as revealed truth.

I've found
Hermann Minkowski – Wikisource (the original German). Ich kann nicht Deutsch sprechen, so I use Hermann Minkowski - Wikisource, the free online library
(English translations)

From Raum und Zeit (Space and Time):
Original: "Die dreidimensionale Geometrie wird ein Kapitel der vierdimensionalen Physik. Sie erkennen, weshalb ich am Eingange sagte, Raum und Zeit sollen zu Schatten herabsinken und nur eine Welt an sich bestehen."
Ganesh Prasad: "The three-dimensional Geometry becomes a chapter of the four-dimensional Physics. You now understand why I said at the outset that space and time shall sink in the background and only constitute a world with their union"
Meghnad Saha: "The three-dimensional geometry will be a chapter of four-dimensional physics. Now you perceive, why I said in the beginning that time and space shall reduce to mere shadows and we shall have a world complete in itself."
Google Translate: "The three-dimensional geometry is a chapter of the four-dimensional physics. You see why I said at the entrance, space and time to sink to the shade and there are only a world in itself."
Bing Translate: "The three-dimensional geometry is a chapter of the four-dimensional physics. You can see why I said on the inputs, space and time to descend to shadow and consist only of a world in itself."

What Satanic Verses

Also, in Die Grundgleichungen für die elektromagnetischen Vorgänge in bewegten Körpern (The Fundamental Equations for Electromagnetic Processes in Moving Bodies) he very clear describes the electromagnetic field with an antisymmetric 2-tensor. So what Farsight dismisses as airy abstractions Minkowski stated very plainly and clearly. More Satanic Verses.

(Me: They rotate because that's what's mechanically most convenient. It has nothing to do with anything about electromagnetism. Have you ever heard of a linear motor?)
Originally Posted by Farsight
It's got everything to do with electromagnetism! It goes all the way back to Faraday's homopolar motor. And irony of ironies, the modern version on Wikipedia features a screw, Yes of course I've heard of a linear motor, it's "an electric motor that has had its stator and rotor 'unrolled'".
But a linear motor does not need rotation, and that's my point.

Originally Posted by Farsight
More thumping.

Electromagnetic field interactions result in electric force and magnetic force. Now try and depict and electromagnetic field.

(Me: Science is not theology...)
Originally Posted by Farsight
Oh no? So why do the electron and the positron move towards one another? Because they're throwing photons back and forth?
It's a continuously-present virtual photon, and it's a field, not some billiard-ball-ish particle tossed back and forth. Farsight, your argument reminds me of Lactantius's argument that the Earth is flat.

[Me: Farsight, I get the impression that you don't know what a spinor is. However, I do.)
Originally Posted by Farsight
I'm sure we all know what a spinor is: http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/users/io..._C_spinors.pdf

44. Moderator note: ALL members will desist from using ad-hominems. Personal attacks are not allowed here - attack the words a user posts, but DO NOT attack the user who posts them.

45. Originally Posted by lpetrich
Cross products -- those are in Maxwell's work. Tensors -- those are in Minkowski's work. So by denying cross products and tensors, you deny Maxwell and Minkowski. Yes, you deny what you otherwise treat as revealed truth.
I'm not denying them. But you are denying what Minkowski actually said. Here's the quote again. He's talking about the electromagnetic field and about electric and magnetic force and a screw analogy.

"In the description of the field caused by the electron itself, then it will appear that the division of the field into electric and magnetic forces is a relative one with respect to the time-axis assumed; the two forces considered together can most vividly be described by a certain analogy to the force-screw in mechanics; the analogy is, however, imperfect".

He isn't talking about a cross-product or a tensor here. He's talking about field and forces. It's that simple Loren.

Originally Posted by lpetrich
I've found
Hermann Minkowski – Wikisource (the original German). Ich kann nicht Deutsch sprechen, so I use Hermann Minkowski - Wikisource, the free online library
(English translations)

From Raum und Zeit (Space and Time):
Original: "Die dreidimensionale Geometrie wird ein Kapitel der vierdimensionalen Physik. Sie erkennen, weshalb ich am Eingange sagte, Raum und Zeit sollen zu Schatten herabsinken und nur eine Welt an sich bestehen."
Ganesh Prasad: "The three-dimensional Geometry becomes a chapter of the four-dimensional Physics. You now understand why I said at the outset that space and time shall sink in the background and only constitute a world with their union"...
We know all that.

Originally Posted by lpetrich
Also, in Die Grundgleichungen für die elektromagnetischen Vorgänge in bewegten Körpern (The Fundamental Equations for Electromagnetic Processes in Moving Bodies) he very clear describes the electromagnetic field with an antisymmetric 2-tensor. So what Farsight dismisses as airy abstractions Minkowski stated very plainly and clearly.
Only the above quote is even plainer and clearer. One field, two forces, a screw analogy.

Originally Posted by lpetrich
But a linear motor does not need rotation, and that's my point.
And two magnets move linearly together. Again you're saying nothing.

Originally Posted by lpetrich
It's a continuously-present virtual photon, and it's a field, not some billiard-ball-ish particle tossed back and forth.
So depict it.

Originally Posted by lpetrich
Farsight, your argument reminds me of Lactantius's argument that the Earth is flat.

Originally Posted by lpetrich
That a Dirac spinor is a mathematical representation of a massive particle such as an electron.

46. Originally Posted by PhysBang
Why give us such an obvious lie?
I don't lie.

Originally Posted by Physbang
You have a picture of a spiral, please show us the details of the system that the spiral is supposed to represent and the details that show us that the details of that spiral match the details of the system. With regular electromagnetism, where one uses two components working together, we can describe a position in a way that we can confront this description with observation. You want us to use a single field that you describe only in a picture with no guide as to how to confront this picture with reality.
I've given you a guide in the OP. And you are of course familiar with gravitomagnetism:

Image credit: NASA

You surely know that Heaviside developed gravitomagnetism as an analogy of electromagnetism. So surely you can have no genuine grievance with my electromagnetic field depiction?

Originally Posted by Physbang
I can turn to an existing body of physics that appears to disagree with your claims to do this. You have given me no reason to believe that Farsight-Electromagnetism can hope to match the physics of even a century and a half ago.
What are you going to do? Put up a depiction of a vector field?

Public domain image by Fibonacci, see File:Vector field.svg - Wikimedia Commons

47. Originally Posted by Farsight
I don't lie.
You can choose which fork of the dilemma you're on, then.
What are you going to do? Put up a depiction of a vector field?
If I'm going to do a physics problem, I might draw a picture to help myself conceptualize the problem. However, then I will use physics to solve the problem. So, the question to you is: How can someone use the screw nature of electromagnetism to solve a physics problem?

You can choose the problem yourself. Just show us how this works.

48. (Farsight's Minkowski quote) "In the description of the field caused by the electron itself, then it will appear that the division of the field into electric and magnetic forces is a relative one with respect to the time-axis assumed; the two forces considered together can most vividly be described by a certain analogy to the force-screw in mechanics; the analogy is, however, imperfect".
Originally Posted by Farsight
He isn't talking about a cross-product or a tensor here. He's talking about field and forces. It's that simple Loren.
He also stated that that analogy is "imperfect", and he discussed cross products and tensors in detail in "The Fundamental Equations for Electromagnetic Processes in Moving Bodies". So this seems to me a scriptural-percussionist sort of argument: taking one bit of text and making far-reaching interpretations of it, interpretations unjustified by the rest of the text. In that latter document, he also stated "... E, M are the electric and magnetic field intensities (forces) ..." in a context that meant that he was talking about the electric and magnetic fields.

As to the decomposition into electric and magnetic fields depending on the time axis, that's something lacking from "Farsight physics", for lack of a better word. The decomposition is like this, to within sign conventions: Ftx = Ex, Fyz = Bx, etc. But according to Farsight physics, they are all somehow mashed together, to be illustrated with hand-drawn diagrams drawn without any attempt to mathematically justify them. That is because mathematics is icky, even if it is the mathematics of Prophets of Revealed Truth like Maxwell, Einstein, Minkowski, Feynman, etc.

If one does a rotation, one mixes components of the electric field, and also of the magnetic field. If one does a boost, one gets a new electric field that's a mixture of the old electric and magnetic fields, and also a new magnetic field that's another mixture.

(Me: Minkpwski stating that space-time is a unified entity...)
Originally Posted by Farsight
We know all that.
But according to Farsight physics, space is primary, while time is derived from motion. However, Lorentz boosts mix space and time, and Lorentz-invariance implies that space and time are on an equal footing, that time is sort of like an additional space dimension.

(Me: It's a continuously-present virtual photon, and it's a field, not some billiard-ball-ish particle tossed back and forth.)
Originally Posted by Farsight
So depict it.
So something isn't physically real unless one can draw a picture of it? Should that picture include instructions on which crayon to use to color each part of it?

(Me: Explain to us, in your own words, what that link states.)
Originally Posted by Farsight
That a Dirac spinor is a mathematical representation of a massive particle such as an electron.
That doesn't really say anything. One ought to describe how a spinor differs from a vector, like give its rotation properties. What operators generate rotations for each sort of entity? You can stick to the 3-space case for simplicity.

49. A tensor is merely a matrix
No, Farsight. While the components of all tensors can be represented by a matrix of appropriate rank and dimension, the reverse is most certainly not true in that not all matrices are tensors. A tensor is a geometric object that transforms in a very specific way under changes of coordinate basis, and it is this transformation law that is its defining property. Tensors and matrices are hence distinct concepts, and not freely interchangeable.

50. The point is Markus, is that a tensor is an abstract mathematical thing, and Minkowski was talking about field and forces that aren't abstract mathematical things.

Originally Posted by PhysBang
I'm going to do a physics problem, I might draw a picture to help myself conceptualize the problem. However, then I will use physics to solve the problem. So, the question to you is: How can someone use the screw nature of electromagnetism to solve a physics problem?
I don't know. But we don't do physics to "do physics problems", we do physics to understand the world. Now come on, pull your finger out and stop playing the naysayer. Depict the electromagnetic field and explain why the electron and positron move together.

Originally Posted by lpretrich
He also stated that that analogy is "imperfect", and he discussed cross products and tensors in detail in "The Fundamental Equations for Electromagnetic Processes in Moving Bodies". So this seems to me a scriptural-percussionist...
No it isn't. He was talking about the electromagnetic field and electric and magnetic forces. Face up to it, stop trying to wish it away.

Originally Posted by lpetrich
As to the decomposition into electric and magnetic fields depending on the time axis, that's something lacking from "Farsight physics", for lack of a better word...
Unbelievable. Minkowski said division of the field into electric and magnetic forces. And you pretend he didn't!

Originally Posted by lpetrich
But according to Farsight physics, they are all somehow mashed together, to be illustrated with hand-drawn diagrams drawn without any attempt to mathematically justify them. That is because mathematics is icky, even if it is the mathematics of Prophets of Revealed Truth like Maxwell, Einstein, Minkowski, Feynman, etc.
This is getting bizarre. It's the electromagnetic field. The greater whole.

Originally Posted by lpetrich
If one does a rotation, one mixes components of the electric field, and also of the magnetic field. If one does a boost, one gets a new electric field that's a mixture of the old electric and magnetic fields, and also a new magnetic field that's another mixture.
It's the electromagnetic field! You don't create a magnetic field by moving through an electric field. You merely see a different aspect of the electromagnetic field.

Originally Posted by lpetrich
But according to Farsight physics, space is primary, while time is derived from motion. However, Lorentz boosts mix space and time, and Lorentz-invariance implies that space and time are on an equal footing, that time is sort of like an additional space dimension.
Time isn't "sort of like" an additional space dimension. It's a dimension in the sense of measure not in the sense of freedom of motion. Hence people talk about 3+1 dimensions and there's a minus sign on the t term in the spacetime interval expression . Think about what a clock does and you should understand why I talk about space and motion.

Originally Posted by lpetrich
So something isn't physically real unless one can draw a picture of it?
No. But you know how to depict the electric field and the magnetic field, and you know that they're two aspects of the electromagnetic field, so pull your finger out and depict it. You could even show a dipole, which looks toroidal.

Originally Posted by lpetrich
That doesn't really say anything. One ought to describe how a spinor differs from a vector, like give its rotation properties. What operators generate rotations for each sort of entity? You can stick to the 3-space case for simplicity.
I've said enough. Maybe I'll talk some more about it on another thread.

51. Originally Posted by Farsight
The point is Markus, is that a tensor is an abstract mathematical thing,
A tensor is a description, and it's no fundamentally different from any other mathematical entity, or nonmathematical natural language, for that matter. This disdain for mathematics seems like a throwback to Aristotelian physics.

Originally Posted by Farsight
and Minkowski was talking about field and forces that aren't abstract mathematical things.
What makes him a Prophet of Revealed Truth?

Originally Posted by Farsight
But we don't do physics to "do physics problems", we do physics to understand the world.
Let's not forget about applied physics and applied science in general. Much of our technology would not exist without the use of applied-physics expertise in the designing of it.
Originally Posted by Farsight
Depict the electromagnetic field
Depict? As in make a drawing? To be colored with crayons, I'm sure.

Originally Posted by Farsight
and explain why the electron and positron move together.
Farsight, what is your idea of an acceptable explanation?

Originally Posted by Farsight
Minkowski said division of the field into electric and magnetic forces. And you pretend he didn't!
Scriptural percussion. Thumping the Book of Minkowski.

52. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
No, Farsight. While the components of all tensors can be represented by a matrix of appropriate rank and dimension, the reverse is most certainly not true in that not all matrices are tensors. A tensor is a geometric object that transforms in a very specific way under changes of coordinate basis, and it is this transformation law that is its defining property. Tensors and matrices are hence distinct concepts, and not freely interchangeable.
It's a funny thing that even having used tensors if I am honest I was still a bit hazy on what they really are. So I found this. For anyone not quite sure (with hand on heart), I can recommend this as a well worthwhile way to spend 12 minutes.

53. The point is Markus, is that a tensor is an abstract mathematical thing, and Minkowski was talking about field and forces that aren't abstract mathematical things.
The point was that your original claim ( tensors are merely matrices ) is incorrect.

54. It says on Wolfram MathWorld that Tensors are generalizations of scalars (that have no indices), vectors (that have exactly one index), and matrices (that have exactly two indices) to an arbitrary number of indices. It also says The notation for a tensor is similar to that of a matrix (i.e., A=(a_(ij))), except that a tensor a_(ijk...), a^(ijk...), a_i^(jk)..., etc., may have an arbitrary number of indices. And there is such a thing as a multidimensional matrix.

Now can we get back to the screw nature of electromagnetism please?

55. Tensors are generalizations of scalars (that have no indices), vectors (that have exactly one index), and matrices (that have exactly two indices) to an arbitrary number of indices. It also says The notation for a tensor is similar to that of a matrix (i.e., A=(a_(ij)))
It is somewhat disappointing that you cherry-picked a quote while omitting the crucial first sentence that gives the actual definition, so I will rectify this and quote it here for you :

An th-rank tensor in -dimensional space is a mathematical object that has indices and components and obeys certain transformation rules.
I have highlighted the relevant part of the definition that distinguishes a tensor from a matrix. A matrix is simply any notational arbitrary arrangement of rows and columns of a specific rank in a specific number of dimensions, without any constraint imposed; the components of a tensor can - in a coordinate basis - be represented by such a matrix, but in addition must satisfy specific transformation rules, or else it is not a tensor. Hence, as I have explained to you earlier, not all matrices are automatically tensors, therefore the two are not the same thing, though they are related. As a real-life example, consider the Christoffel symbols of the 2nd kind - these can be represented as a matrix of connection coefficients, yet they are not a tensor. If you read further on within the article you quoted, the transformation laws that distinguish a tensor from an arbitrary matrix are given in detail. Only objects that transform in that given way can be tensors.

It would have been much better if you had just acknowledged that you made an error, and that you had learned something new in the process, instead of trying to defend a manifestly incorrect claim by cherry-picking quotes.

But I agree with you, enough of the distraction - continue on with the subject matter of this thread please. If you are still unclear as to why tensors and matrices are not the same, just Google it and read through the sources; alternatively consult any relevant textbook on tensor calculus, which will explain this in detail, usually in the first few chapters.

56. Cough, I would think a tensor could represent anything. It's only in GR that we make them obey certain rules ( like invariance under the choice of coordinates).

57. It's only in GR that we make them obey certain rules
Not at all. The transformation rules are part of the mathematical definition of what a tensor is, and not the result of anything to do with GR. Remember that tensors are rigorously defined mathematical entities, which were known long before Einstein - he simply made use of tensors precisely because of their properties, specifically diffeomorphism invariance, in the sense that physical laws cannot intrinsically depend on the chosen observer. The Theory or Relativity is thus a specific application of the concept of tensors, not its definition.

Note that the rigorous definition involves outer (tensor) products of vector spaces and their duals, and does not make any reference to coordinate bases, or even indices. R.W.R. Darling, Differential Forms and Connections, gives a good account of this; you might also have a quick look here :

Tensor (intrinsic definition) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

58. Markus: I acknowledge that I made an error, and that I've learned something new in the process.

Now, lpetrich said the electromagnetic-field tensor F contains both E and B as components. And that the tensor describes the electromagnetic field. So, we know how to depict E and B, so who's going to have a shot at depicting "the field caused by the electron itself"? A better depiction than my "Fibonacci screw" would involve a magnetic dipole. See dipole images on google.

59. Markus: I acknowledge that I made an error, and that I've learned something new in the process.
That's good, because this is how we progress. For whatever it's worth - when I first started to learn about this, I also thought that the two are the same thing.

60. Farsight, it's not just me who has stated that F contains E and B as components. It is written in the Book of Minkowski, it is written in the Book of Feynman, it is written in the Book of Jackson, etc. So if one believes in doing science by sacred-book interpretation, how can one argue with that?

61. What's with the sacred book stuff lpetrich? And who's arguing with that? We normally talk about the electric field and the magnetic field being different "aspects" of the electromagnetic field. You could use the word components instead. But we still ome back to the fact that we know how to depict an electric field and a magnetic field. But there are no depictions of the electromagnetic field. Don't you find that interesting? Don't you have any curiosity about that?

62. I am a bit confused. Are you talking about something different to the EM field tensor?
The electromagnetic field tensor

63. Jilan, that is correct.
Originally Posted by Farsight
What's with the sacred book stuff lpetrich? And who's arguing with that?
I was satirizing a certain sort of argument that you make.
Originally Posted by Farsight
We normally talk about the electric field and the magnetic field being different "aspects" of the electromagnetic field. You could use the word components instead.
Why "aspects"? Farsight, your comments about F strike me as fumble after fumble after fumble. It's much better if one can learn the math.
Originally Posted by Farsight
But we still ome back to the fact that we know how to depict an electric field and a magnetic field. But there are no depictions of the electromagnetic field. Don't you find that interesting? Don't you have any curiosity about that?
That's a non-issue. I don't see why it's supposed to be an issue.

64. Originally Posted by Farsight
But we still ome back to the fact that we know how to depict an electric field and a magnetic field. But there are no depictions of the electromagnetic field. Don't you find that interesting? Don't you have any curiosity about that?
Meh, another bee under Duffield's bonnet

65. Originally Posted by Jilan
I am a bit confused. Are you talking about something different to the EM field tensor?
The electromagnetic field tensor
Yes. I'm talking about the electromagnetic field. See Wikipedia. It's a physical field. Like lpetrich said earlier, a tensor is an abstract mathematical thing. The electromagnetic field tensor describes the electromagnetic field.

Originally Posted by lpetrich
Why "aspects"? Farsight
Because you don't create a magnetic field when you move through an electric field. You merely see a different aspect of the field that's there, the electromagnetic field.

Originally Posted by lpetrich
your comments about F strike me as fumble after fumble after fumble. It's much better if one can learn the math.
I'm not fumbling. But you are dodging. Now come on, depict the electromagnetic field.

66. Originally Posted by Farsight
Because you don't create a magnetic field when you move through an electric field. You merely see a different aspect of the field that's there, the electromagnetic field.
Except that what one observes when one moves is identical to a magnetic field. This sort of hairsplitting is silly. Learning the math behind F = {E,B} would save a LOT of trouble. It is for very good reason that your Inspired Prophets of Physics used a lot of math.

Originally Posted by Farsight
Now come on, depict the electromagnetic field.
With that depiction to be published in a child's coloring book?

67. Originally Posted by lpetrich
Except that what one observes when one moves is identical to a magnetic field. This sort of hairsplitting is silly.
It's not hairsplitting, it's understanding. You don't "create" a magnetic field when you move past a charged particle. You merely observe it's electromagnetic field in a different way.

Originally Posted by lpetrich
Learning the math behind F = {E,B} would save a LOT of trouble. It is for very good reason that your Inspired Prophets of Physics used a lot of math.
But math obviously doesn't tell you that in the description of the field caused by the electron itself, then it will appear that the division of the field into electric and magnetic forces is a relative one with respect to the time-axis...

Originally Posted by lpetrich
With that depiction to be published in a child's coloring book?
No, with that depiction shown here to force you to admit to the screw nature of electromagnetism. You know how to depict an electric field, a magnetic field, a gravitational field, and a gravitomagnetic field:

Image courtesy of NASA, see NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment

It's time you tried to depict the electromagnetic field. Come on, you used the word "components". So you're trying to depict something that has one component depicted with radial lines, and another component depicted with concentric lines. Not a lot of choices are there?

68. Again, I must ask: how can we do a physics problem with this "screw nature"? Can we see an example?

69. Originally Posted by Farsight
It's time you tried to depict the electromagnetic field. Come on, you used the word "components". So you're trying to depict something that has one component depicted with radial lines, and another component depicted with concentric lines. Not a lot of choices are there?

I asked you (here) to see if you could construct diagrams like your "radial lines + concentric circle" one, but using the actual fields for the electron rather than whatever it is the circle and spiral are fields of (something we never quite ascertained, IIRC). I asked you to do so as it would give you some very interesting insight into the ambiguity inherent in the "radial lines + concentric circle" picture, and you said (here) you'd have a go. The thread was then moved to Alternative Theories, after which you unfortunately decided that you would retire from it.

If you haven't had the chance to construct those pictures yet, you may be interested in the diagrams I posted later in that thread (in this post) where I did exactly that; you can see that the result is very different from the spiral picture from the OP. My comments in that post may be of interest, too.

70. Originally Posted by PhysBang
Again, I must ask: how can we do a physics problem with this "screw nature"? Can we see an example?
You can't But you can understand why electrons and positrons move towards each other with linear and rotational motion as per positronium. The motion is patently vorticial. I find it rather strange that some people would rather believe they throw photons at one another. More than strange. Cargo cult.

71. Originally Posted by btr

I asked you (here) to see if you could construct diagrams like your "radial lines + concentric circle" one, but using the actual fields for the electron rather than whatever it is the circle and spiral are fields of (something we never quite ascertained, IIRC). I asked you to do so as it would give you some very interesting insight into the ambiguity inherent in the "radial lines + concentric circle" picture, and you said (here) you'd have a go. The thread was then moved to Alternative Theories, after which you unfortunately decided that you would retire from it.
Sorry about that. If there's one thing I can't stand, it's a good discussion booted into the trashcan by some "moderator" playing thought-police, who also permits abuse and insult from people whose physics knowledge is excrutiatingly poor. I refuse to conduct a conversation burdened by the stigma of "alternative theories" when I'm quoting Maxwell and Minkowski and Einstein etc. That forum was pretty good with James R moderating, but not now.

Originally Posted by btr
If you haven't had the chance to construct those pictures yet, you may be interested in the diagrams I posted later in that thread (in this post) where I did exactly that; you can see that the result is very different from the spiral picture from the OP. My comments in that post may be of interest, too.
Thanks for making the effort, apologies for not getting back to you previously. I'll display the picture and give some feedback:

The first image depicts "electric field lines" or radial electric lines of force, wherein a charged particle such as a positron with no initial relative motion would move directly towards the electron. It's something we're all fairly happy with, but the point I'd like to stress is that the force is the result of electromagnetic field interactions, and that there's confusion between lines of force and a force field. There is no force on a single electron. Its electromagnetic field only exerts force when the positron's electromagnetic field is present too, then they move together. I depicted it like this:

Also note that there's an issue with your arrowheads. See Andrew Duffy's depiction where the electron is shown with inward-pointing arrowheads, and the positron with outward-pointing arrowheads. Neither is particularly apt, since two electrons move apart, two positrons move apart, and an electron and a positron move together. The arrowheads aren't an adequate distinction between electrons and positrons, and don't actually depict the direction of force. It takes two to tango.

Your second image is again something we're all fairly happy with. It shows dipole "magnetic field lines", but again there's issues with arrowheads and distinguishing electrons and positrons because no rotation is shown, as per this image. On top of that a charged particle moves around the magnetic field lines, not along them. Hence they aren't called lines of force. And of course a positron goes the other way round, as per this image.

So you can't just add them together as per your third image. We have apples and pears here. You need to combine the two depictions, not simply add them.

72. Originally Posted by Farsight
You can't
OK, so you admit that you aren't doing physics. Will you shut up now?
But you can understand why electrons and positrons move towards each other with linear and rotational motion as per positronium. The motion is patently vorticial. I find it rather strange that some people would rather believe they throw photons at one another. More than strange. Cargo cult.
So, without knowing the details, you claim that there is no explanation.

And you are accusing all of practicing physicists of being slavishly ignorant of real physics.

This really seems pathetic.

73. (Make predictions...)
Originally Posted by Farsight
You can't
But you can understand why electrons and positrons move towards each other with linear and rotational motion as per positronium.
"Understanding" from false theories? I'll pass on that.
The motion is patently vorticial. I find it rather strange that some people would rather believe they throw photons at one another. More than strange. Cargo cult.
That's childish. This is quantum field theory, not billiard-ball classical mechanics. Electrically-charged particles don't throw photons at each other. Instead, they interact by continuously-existing virtual-photon fields that they create.

74. Originally Posted by Farsight
Sorry about that. If there's one thing I can't stand, it's a good discussion booted into the trashcan by some "moderator" playing thought-police...{childish, self-serving rant excised}
Maybe they simply tired of the tragic ratio of bluster to real physics in your many posts. You rant with the best of 'em, I'll grant you that, but you never show an example where your allegedly superior understanding yields even the same result as conventional physics, let alone a better one. Your pattern in all fora is the same: Bellow loudly that only you understand the "real" nature of things, that by a correct scriptural reading of the Holy Texts of Minkowski, Einstein et al, you alone have divined their true meaning. When challenged to produce even one sample calculation, you run, hide, bluster, and put up smoke. But never a calculation.

The conclusion is unfortunate and inescapable: You have nothing. Your entire enterprise is an exercise in ego.

It's long past time for you to put up or shut up, Mr. Duffield. Since, after all these years, and after all the requests and challenges to show something, you have never done anything but repeat your assertions, it is clear that you cannot do anything but repeat your assertions.

But you are a great entertainment.

75. Originally Posted by Farsight
I refuse to conduct a conversation burdened by the stigma of "alternative theories" when I'm quoting Maxwell and Minkowski and Einstein etc.
That's what I call arguing like a theologian. Arguing from selected quotations of presumably inspired works.

(pictures snipped)

The first set seems to be about adding the electric field and the magnetic field, something that has no physical justification. The electromagnetic tensor F is not E + B but more or less {E,B}. The Books of Einstein, Minkowski, Feynman, Jackson, ... contain the full math, and it's actually rather simple, at least if one understands multidimensional arrays.

But overall, I don't see how drawing pictures is any substitute for doing the math. Especially since the pictures are 2D representations of 3D-space objects.

As to an electron and positron attracting each other, why stick to that? One should consider *any* charged particles.

76. Originally Posted by lpetrich
That's what I call arguing like a theologian. Arguing from selected quotations of presumably inspired works.
It isn't, because I give the hard scientific evidence too.

Originally Posted by lpetrich
The first set seems to be about adding the electric field and the magnetic field, something that has no physical justification. The electromagnetic tensor F is not E + B but more or less {E,B}. The Books of Einstein, Minkowski, Feynman, Jackson, ... contain the full math, and it's actually rather simple, at least if one understands multidimensional arrays.
You don't understand at all. The electromagnetic field tensor describes the electromagnetic field, but it is not what the electromagnetic field is. And it's the electromagnetic field, not the electric field and the magnetic field. There isn't an inward force-field around an electron and an outward force-field around a positron. Remember what I said: it takes two to tango. There's a force between two charged particles as a result of their electromagnetic field interactions. They move linearly and/or rotationally because they have electromagnetic fields. I depicted them like this:

Originally Posted by lpetrich
But overall, I don't see how drawing pictures is any substitute for doing the math. Especially since the pictures are 2D representations of 3D-space objects.
It is a very good substitute for thinking electrons and positrons throw photons at one another.

Originally Posted by lpetrich
As to an electron and positron attracting each other, why stick to that? One should consider *any* charged particles.
No problem. Consider the electron and the proton, and ask yourself this: do hydrogen atoms twinkle?

Originally Posted by lpetrich
That's childish. This is quantum field theory, not billiard-ball classical mechanics. Electrically-charged particles don't throw photons at each other. Instead, they interact by continuously-existing virtual-photon fields that they create.
Oh yeah? How come an electron has an electromagnetic field, and how a positron does too, but with the opposite charge and chirality. And how come they move linearly and rotationally then? Like vortices. Oh don't tell me, it's because of the spinor nature of their virtual-photon fields. How about you try to depict that? Here, here's something to get you started:

Image credit Jim Bumgardner, see Pixel Magic - Spirals

77. Originally Posted by Farsight
It isn't, because I give the hard scientific evidence too.
When you say that you "can't" link your pictures to how people do science, then you also "can't" be giving hard scientific evidence.

78. (on Farsight's arguing like a theologian...)
Originally Posted by Farsight
It isn't, because I give the hard scientific evidence too.
That's evading what I was discussing, your habit of quoting Einstein and Minkowski and so forth in Bible-thumper fasion. Complete with arguing that anyone who rejects your interpretations rejects Einstein and Minkowski and so forth and is thus a very Evil Person. That sort of discourse is much more typical of theology than of science.

The electromagnetic field tensor describes the electromagnetic field, but it is not what the electromagnetic field is.
Splitting hairs about description. One can point out that a description of *anything* is not that thing itself, and I don't see what you are getting at that's more than that trivial point.

And it's the electromagnetic field, not the electric field and the magnetic field.
Both of them are fields, and are part of a bigger field. Symbolically, E, B, and F = {E,B} are all fields.

There isn't an inward force-field around an electron and an outward force-field around a positron.
Yes there is, the electric field, using a suitable sign convention.
(argument by diagram-drawing snipped)

It is a very good substitute for thinking electrons and positrons throw photons at one another.
I find that argument very Lactantius-like. That's not what a virtual particle is.

Consider the electron and the proton, and ask yourself this: do hydrogen atoms twinkle?
Of course not. A virtual particle is something like a standing wave. Twinkling is losing energy, and virtual-particle interactions don't necessarily leak energy in that fashion.

How come an electron has an electromagnetic field, and how a positron does too, but with the opposite charge and chirality.
It's not just the electron and positron. You must consider *any* charged particle.

And how come they move linearly and rotationally then? Like vortices. Oh don't tell me, it's because of the spinor nature of their virtual-photon fields.
Photons have a vector structure, not a spinor structure, and a spinor structure of an electromagnetic-field source does not appear in the field itself.

79. Originally Posted by lpetrich
That's evading what I was discussing, your habit of quoting Einstein and Minkowski and so forth in Bible-thumper fasion. Complete with arguing that anyone who rejects your interpretations rejects Einstein and Minkowski and so forth and is thus a very Evil Person. That sort of discourse is much more typical of theology than of science.
Geddoutofit. Your dismissal of the patent blatant evidence and Einstein/Minkowski /Maxwell/etc is far more like theology than anything from me.

Originally Posted by lpetrich
Splitting hairs about description. One can point out that a description of *anything* is not that thing itself, and I don't see what you are getting at that's more than that trivial point.
It isn't splitting hairs, it's crucial. You mistake abstract mathematical concepts for reality, you have no concept that a field is a state of space, you reject Einstein saying that, and you reject the very idea that there's anything wrong with what you've been taught. Rather like a religious groupie. You really are more "theological" than me. You treat me like I'm some heretic.

Originally Posted by lpetrich
Both of them are fields, and are part of a bigger field. Symbolically, E, B, and F = {E,B} are all fields.
Symbolically? What about reality? What about the field of the electron? You really do need to work on these "lost in math" issues Loren.

Originally Posted by lpetrich
Yes there is, the electric field, using a suitable sign convention.
There isn't an inward force-field around an electron and an outward force-field around a positron. Because two electrons move apart, two positrons move apart, and an electron and a positron move together.

Originally Posted by lpetrich
(argument by diagram-drawing snipped)
It's argument by logic. And you're running from it.

Originally Posted by lpetrich
I find that argument very Lactantius-like. That's not what a virtual particle is.
But that's what's given out as an explanation of how charged particles interact. It's utter garbage and you know it.

Originally Posted by lpetrich
Of course not. A virtual particle is something like a standing wave. Twinkling is losing energy, and virtual-particle interactions don't necessarily leak energy in that fashion.
Now we're getting somewhere. A virtual particle is a "field quanta". Like you've divvied up a field into chunks and said each one is a virtual particle. The field concerned being the electron's field. In a way the electron's standing field is a standing-wave version of the photon field-variation, so you can see the glimmers of truth and why QED "works".

Originally Posted by lpetrich
It's not just the electron and positron. You must consider *any* charged particle.
No problem.

Originally Posted by lpetrich
Photons have a vector structure, not a spinor structure, and a spinor structure of an electromagnetic-field source does not appear in the field itself.
You are totally ducking the issue of why electrons and positrons (and other charged particles) move in a linearly and/or rotational fashion. Now come on, have a crack at depicting the electromagnetic field. What's the problem?

80. Originally Posted by PhysBang
When you say that you "can't" link your pictures to how people do science, then you also "can't" be giving hard scientific evidence.
As you know full well, the hard scientific evidence I give is things like pair production and electron diffraction and magnetic moment and atomic orbitals and the Einstein-de Haas effect. The latter "demonstrates that spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies as conceived in classical mechanics". The electron has a definite wave nature, and the evidence says it's a wave going round and round staying in one place rather than propagating linearly at c. Sadly there are people who willfully dismiss all this in favour of "the electron is a fundamental particle". I find it rather absurd myself.

81. Originally Posted by Farsight
Your dismissal of the patent blatant evidence
Like what?
and Einstein/Minkowski /Maxwell/etc
That's what I mean by arguing like a theologian.
You mistake abstract mathematical concepts for reality
I do no such thing. Mathematics is a description, as language is and as diagrams are.
you have no concept that a field is a state of space
Something totally baseless. A field is something that has a value everywhere in space-time.
you reject Einstein saying that
So like a theologian. Thus implying that I'm guilty of rejecting the sacred books.
You really do need to work on these "lost in math" issues Loren.
Math from the Book of Einstein, the Book of Minkowski, the Book of Feynman, the Book of Jackson, ... to use an argument that I hope that you can understand.

(throwing photons at each other...)
But that's what's given out as an explanation of how charged particles interact. It's utter garbage and you know it.
Farsight, that's a gross misunderstanding of virtual particles.

Now come on, have a crack at depicting the electromagnetic field. What's the problem?
I fail to see why it's supposed to be necessary to depict it.

82. Originally Posted by Farsight
As you know full well, the hard scientific evidence I give is things like pair production and electron diffraction and magnetic moment and atomic orbitals and the Einstein-de Haas effect.
As if only your theories can explain them, Farsight.

The latter "demonstrates that spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies as conceived in classical mechanics".
That's from Wikipedia, right? As if Wikipedia was a sacred book.

The electron has a definite wave nature, and the evidence says it's a wave going round and round staying in one place rather than propagating linearly at c. Sadly there are people who willfully dismiss all this in favour of "the electron is a fundamental particle". I find it rather absurd myself.
The people who do so are just about every mainstream particle physicist, and for very good reason.

83. Your refusal to depict the electromagnetic field speaks volumes. And what have you said instead? Nothing. You're all dismissal and denial and naysaying instead of sincere discussion.

84. Originally Posted by Farsight
You're all dismissal and denial and naysaying instead of sincere discussion.

85. Your refusal to depict the electromagnetic field speaks volumes.
I am not sure how you would propose to "depict" a 4-dimensional entity such as the Faraday tensor in its entirety. I seem to remember that I gave you visualisations of the corresponding 2-form and its dual in another thread, with one coordinate axis suppressed - that is as much as one can do here. The "field" itself would be the superposition of these visualisations across all coordinate axes, so you cannot graphically depict that.

86. Can you remember the thread Marcus? I'm afraid I can't.

87. Can you remember the thread Marcus? I'm afraid I can't.
http://www.thephysicsforum.com/speci...magnetism.html

88. Originally Posted by Markus hanke
I am not sure how you would propose to "depict" a 4-dimensional entity such as the Faraday tensor in its entirety.
I think that Ipetrich needs some help, I just bought 4 colored felt tip pens. I am willing to mail them to him, free of charge.

89. Thanks Markus, yes of course. You posted various pictures including this:

And I responded with this:

Image credit Adrian Rossiter, see "Antiprism" torus animations

I said somewhere that this "bispinor" should be thought of as being at the centre of my "Fibonacci screw" depiction as per post #76, wherein the orthogonal rotation puts a dynamical frame-dragging curl into the surrounding space.

Sorry, that thread seems to have gone quiet. I for one forgot about it. I'll give it a bump.

90. Originally Posted by Farsight
As you know full well, the hard scientific evidence I give is things like pair production and electron diffraction and magnetic moment and atomic orbitals and the Einstein-de Haas effect. The latter "demonstrates that spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies as conceived in classical mechanics". The electron has a definite wave nature, and the evidence says it's a wave going round and round staying in one place rather than propagating linearly at c. Sadly there are people who willfully dismiss all this in favour of "the electron is a fundamental particle". I find it rather absurd myself.
Look, I can't say that you are delusional, because that would be called an ad hominem.

What I will say is that it is unreasonable to the point of straining sanity to claim that someone who cannot do any part of a science is presenting hard scientific evidence.

91. Well, I've heard a variety of excuses for dismissing hard scientific evidence like electron diffraction and the Einstein–de Haas effect, but that really takes the biscuit. You might want to have a little think about that delusional, Albert. And take a look in the mirror.

92. Farsight, nobody's denying electron diffraction or the Einstein-de Haas effect or the electron's magnetic moment or pair production or any of the other "evidence" that you cite in support of the circling-photon theory of the electron. Nobody. That's because they have a much better theory than the circling-photon theory of the electron and similar theories. A MUCH better theory, one capable of making numerical predictions, something that the circling-photon theory seems incapable of.

Farsight, it is not my fault that it involves things that you dislike, such as virtual particles, and it's not anyone else's fault.

93. Originally Posted by lpetrich
Farsight, it is not my fault that it involves things that you dislike, such as virtual particles, and it's not anyone else's fault.
Farsight has hinted that there is a conspiracy amongst physicists to promote false physics. I would be interested in hearing his evidence.

94. Originally Posted by PhysBang
Farsight has hinted that there is a conspiracy amongst physicists to promote false physics. I would be interested in hearing his evidence.
I wouldn't put it like that, PhysBang. It's not some conspiracy, it's a mixture of hubris and arrogance and ignorance. It's like Planck said, science advances one funeral at a time. The guy who wrote the textbook, the guy who's been telling you this is how it is for the last thirty years, doesn't react too well when you tell him oh no it isn't. Remember that SR wasn't mainstream until the late twenties, and GR wasn't mainstream until the sixties.

Originally Posted by lpetrich
Farsight, nobody's denying electron diffraction or the Einstein-de Haas effect or the electron's magnetic moment or pair production or any of the other "evidence" that you cite in support of the circling-photon theory of the electron. Nobody. That's because they have a much better theory than the circling-photon theory of the electron and similar theories. A MUCH better theory, one capable of making numerical predictions, something that the circling-photon theory seems incapable of.
To make it even better, it has to acknowledge the evidence that the electron is a wave that's going round and round. It's no good dismissing all the evidence for it and saying the electron is a point-particle.

Originally Posted by lpetrich
Farsight, it is not my fault that it involves things that you dislike, such as virtual particles, and it's not anyone else's fault.
I don't dislike virtual particles. There's no problem with them provided you remember they're field quanta. The problem comes when people start believing in the trash that says they pop in and out of existence like magic. That's not physics, that's cargo-cult science.

95. Originally Posted by Farsight
I wouldn't put it like that, PhysBang. It's not some conspiracy, it's a mixture of hubris and arrogance and ignorance.
Who are you talking about, Duffield?

96. Originally Posted by Farsight
I wouldn't put it like that, PhysBang. It's not some conspiracy, it's a mixture of hubris and arrogance and ignorance.
Why do you say that the people who have put in the time to learn the details of the physics have "a mixture of hubris and arrogance and ignorance" but you, who have admittedly not, don't have "a mixture of hubris and arrogance and ignorance"?

It's like Planck said, science advances one funeral at a time.
That's a claim that people can test... and historians of science now seem to think that Planck was dead wrong. Newton is famous for having changed the minds of his contemporaries. If you have some evidence other than your one, cherry-picked, holy quotation to support this idea, then let's see it.

The guy who wrote the textbook, the guy who's been telling you this is how it is for the last thirty years, doesn't react too well when you tell him oh no it isn't. Remember that SR wasn't mainstream until the late twenties, and GR wasn't mainstream until the sixties.
You seem to be ignoring the lack of practical applications for SR and GR until those time periods. That it wasn't important doesn't mean that it was not believed by those who studied it.

97. Originally Posted by Farsight
It's like Planck said, science advances one funeral at a time.
So your main argument is that mainstream scientists are nothing but orthodox oxen? That's a favorite argument of many pseudoscientists and crackpots.

To make it even better, it has to acknowledge the evidence that the electron is a wave that's going round and round. It's no good dismissing all the evidence for it and saying the electron is a point-particle.
Implying that the circling-photon theory of the electron is the only possible alternative to the classical-pointlike-particle theory of it. I will concede that calling an electron pointlike is rather misleading. It's a wave, but one with very little internal structure, much like a photon, and certainly not a circling photon. That's what's usually meant by pointlike. Like a photon with a well-defined momentum, an electron with a well-defined momentum is a plane wave.

I'll ignore electric charge, QCD color, flavor, and other such features in this discussion of the structures of various fields.

A spin-0 field's value is given by a single function, one that accepts a space-time position and returns a single real value. Applying a rotation, reflection, or boost (RRB) to it changes the space-time position but not anything else about the field function. That's why a spin-0 field is often called a scalar field.

A spin-1 field's value is given by a set of 4 functions, sort of like 4 spin-0 fields, but with RRB's making mixtures of those functions as if they were components of space-time. That's why a spin-1 field is often called a vector field. The electromagnetic potential is a space-time vector, with these transformation properties, so that's why the photon is assigned spin 1.

A spin-1/2 field's value is given by a set of 2 or 4 functions, depending on whether it is a Majorana or a Dirac field. Like a spin-1 field, those functions get mixed by RRB's, but their mixing is more complicated than for spin-1 particles. Also, a Dirac field can be interpreted as two massless Majorana fields connected with a mass term.

I won't get into spin-3/2 or spin-2 fields here, but they work similarly.

I don't dislike virtual particles. There's no problem with them provided you remember they're field quanta. The problem comes when people start believing in the trash that says they pop in and out of existence like magic. That's not physics, that's cargo-cult science.
Maybe to you they are magic, but not to mainstream particle physicists. In fact, they've worked out the math behind it. Richard Feynman got part of a Nobel Prize for helping to work out some of that.

98. Originally Posted by lpetrich
So your main argument is that mainstream scientists are nothing but orthodox oxen? That's a favorite argument of many pseudoscientists and crackpots.
No, my main argument is that the hard scientific evidence is conclusive. Maybe I should add that quacks who peddle woo will urge you to dismiss the evidence, but I prefer to remain civil and let the science speak for itself.

Originally Posted by lpetrich
Implying that the circling-photon theory of the electron is the only possible alternative to the classical-pointlike-particle theory of it. I will concede that calling an electron pointlike is rather misleading. It's a wave
Good. And it has its magnetic dipole moment. So something is going round and round.

Originally Posted by lpetrich
but one with very little internal structure
What? It's a spin½ particle. It has a clear structure akin to Dirac's belt. But it's spherically symmetric too. I think a nice mental picture comes from inflating the Moebius to a torus, then inflating further. See Adrian Rossiter's torus animations.

Originally Posted by lpetrich
much like a photon, and certainly not a circling photon. That's what's usually meant by pointlike. Like a photon with a well-defined momentum, an electron with a well-defined momentum is a plane wave.
It isn't pointlike, and it isn't a plane wave!

Originally Posted by lpetrich
I'll ignore electric charge, QCD color, flavor, and other such features in this discussion of the structures of various fields.
You shouldn't. Charge is a "just is" property that isn't explained.

Originally Posted by lpetrich
A spin-0 field's value is given by a single function, one that accepts a space-time position and returns a single real value. Applying a rotation, reflection, or boost (RRB) to it changes the space-time position but not anything else about the field function. That's why a spin-0 field is often called a scalar field.

A spin-1 field's value is given by a set of 4 functions, sort of like 4 spin-0 fields, but with RRB's making mixtures of those functions as if they were components of space-time. That's why a spin-1 field is often called a vector field. The electromagnetic potential is a space-time vector, with these transformation properties, so that's why the photon is assigned spin 1.

A spin-1/2 field's value is given by a set of 2 or 4 functions, depending on whether it is a Majorana or a Dirac field. Like a spin-1 field, those functions get mixed by RRB's, but their mixing is more complicated than for spin-1 particles. Also, a Dirac field can be interpreted as two massless Majorana fields connected with a mass term.
You should get into how pair production actually converts spin1 fields into spin ½ fields and how annihilation does the opposite.

Originally Posted by lpetrich
Maybe to you they are magic, but not to mainstream particle physicists. In fact, they've worked out the math behind it. Richard Feynman got part of a Nobel Prize for helping to work out some of that.
But Richard Feynman didn't believe virtual particles are real particles that pop in and out of existence. Instead he wrote Cargo Cult Science.

99. Originally Posted by Farsight
No, my main argument is that the hard scientific evidence is conclusive.
That's far from true: you haven't yet shown any relationship between your diagrams and how a physical system is described. Indeed, you have declared that it is impossible to relate your pictures to any physical system. This implies that your work is not science but dogmatic metaphysics.
Maybe I should add that quacks who peddle woo will urge you to dismiss the evidence, but I prefer to remain civil and let the science speak for itself.
Cherry-picking quotations is not letting something speak for itself. If you have science to present, show us how it relates to observational evidence.

It isn't pointlike, and it isn't a plane wave!
You should be able to demonstrate this using observations of electrons.
But Richard Feynman didn't believe virtual particles are real particles that pop in and out of existence. Instead he wrote Cargo Cult Science.
The main theme of that article is how important experiment and observational evidence is: please heed the theme and link your own statements to experiment or abandon them as being physics.

100. (The electron's wave nature...)
Originally Posted by Farsight
Good.
Do you think that I had rejected it before you had tried to make me accept The Truth? Seriously.
And it has its magnetic dipole moment. So something is going round and round.
Except that that is an unnecessary hypothesis.
It isn't pointlike, and it isn't a plane wave!
But according to the Book of Feynman, an electron can be a plane wave. So if you deny that, you deny Richard Feynman, and by your arguments, that makes you a heretic.

Richard Feynman, Quantum Electrodynamics, "Solution of the Dirac Equation for a Free Particle" (p. 56).

(my leaving aside electric charge...)
You shouldn't. Charge is a "just is" property that isn't explained.
I was doing that to keep it simple. Electric charge is a property of interactions, and I didn't want to get into that.

But Richard Feynman didn't believe virtual particles are real particles that pop in and out of existence. Instead he wrote Cargo Cult Science.
According to the Book of Feynman, he did. In the aforementioned book, he has the chapter "Relativistic Treatment of the Interaction of Particles with Light" with sections "Two-Photon Pair Annihilation" (p. 104) and "Pair Production" (p. 111).

Page 1 of 2 12 Last
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Forum Rules